Until disaster befalls, most Americans think that things are OK in
their lives. Oh, they will get momentarily riled by anything that
runs counter to their moral sensibilities. But most can't stay
focused on any one issue long enough to become motivated to change
things. And aren't people who are motivated enough to push for
positive changes, seen as radicals of negativity, or as boring media
hogs?
Anyone who gets the Big Picture of what is going on in America knows
that governments have managed to get a finger in every pie. Is there
moral outrage? No. So long as John Q. Public can still pay his bills
on time, and still gets to root for his favorite teams, why get up-
tight?
At election times, this country barely turns out a majority of the
registered voters. Those who win, nonetheless, feel it is their
chance to tell the losers how things should be run in their lives.
Amazingly, when government doesn't make things better—as politicians
so often promise to do—voters just switch to the other side and keep
hoping that, next time, the world will be made to be closer to their
ideals.
Most Americans don't do more than just belly-ache, now and then, about
needed changes in this country, and in the world. Why? Because we
have media over-load. New hot issues keep wowing us. But as with
having too many choices at a smorgasbord, what issues will we put on
our plate? Can we be all things, to all good causes?
What to do… ? Well, most Americans just shrug and say the equivalent
of: Live and let live; don't get involved in anything; things have
turned out OK in the past. Right? Trust our elected leaders. They
will know how to handle things. Right?
But those who do get the Big Picture in America know that: Government
is growing like a cancer and is devouring every civil liberty in its
path; Big Business, with its lobbyists and oft disguised
contributions, is pulling the strings; the media, with its advertiser
financed agendas, largely can't be trusted to be objective; and a
corrupt judiciary, is allowing America to drift further and further
from the ideals of the founding fathers. When will disaster befall?
Those in government stand in front of the American flag at every photo
opportunity. Aren't they the USA? Aren't they our elected
dictators? And don't they always praise the greatness of the US
Constitution? Of course they do! They learned long ago to either
interpret, or to ignore, anything in that document that runs counter
to their cherished dictatorships. They hide behind it rather than
fear its retributions on them for their failings.
The founding fathers, also, failed it two huge ways when they wrote
the Constitution. First: They wrongly assumed that those we elect to
represent us will be faithful to the electorates. Fact:
Representatives are now celebrities on a national stage—loyal only to
those national business or social interests with the most pull (money
and votes). And the founding fathers made impeachment such a
cumbersome process that no elected official needs to fear being made
to pay for his failings. Second: To appease the small states, who had
feared that larger states would dominate them in votes, the founding
fathers created a government composed of the Senate, House, the
Executive, and the Judiciary. The Senate and the House are left to
hash-things-out and to come to one consensus. But therein lies the
problem that most threatens the continued survival of the USA: The
Senate isn't based on democracy! By having a Senate, most issues
voted on are "compromised" to be even further from the 'representative
results' the citizens keep having… faith… will be put in place.
As the seeds of disaster get sowed, the mishmash of our government
becomes little more than amusing subjects for the late-night talk
shows. If people laugh, things are OK. Right? We trust that the
media will inform us, in time… of the bad things, so we can vote… in
time… to stop them. But the media has become just the announcers for
the amusing "game" that is politics. Their ubiquitous polls are the
daily "scores" in our political contests. And those "scores"—
trustworthy or not—often influence the fund raising of worthy
candidates so much that they drop out of the race before the voters
even get to cast an "official vote" for anyone. Where is democracy in
America? It is said that Roman Emperor Nero Fiddled while Rome
Burned. Why are so many apathetic Americans fiddling, too?
— John A. Armistead — Patriot
AKA NoEinstein on Google's sci.physics.
Those who might be interested are invited to read my recently
published book, "The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through
Prosperity," (Amazon and B. & N.) Like me, Ohio Gov. John Kasich
touts prosperity as a cure for many ills. When more people realize
that fact, the USA will be on the road to being saved from the doom of
socialism.
>
On Feb 21, 5:39 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The media isn't helping the American cause.
>
> As I work to save the USA, I look for varied ways of explaining what
> ordinary Americans need to know. I want everyone to understand my
> motives as well as my solutions to this nation's woes. The latter
> solutions are evident in every sentence of my 'New Constitution of the
> United States of America'. I've written such to benefit John Q.
> Public in towns, cities and rural areas all across this country. No
> motive for personal glory could have compelled me to devote so much of
> my talent to such an important odyssey—for fourteen plus years and
> counting.
>
> Gov. Mike Huckabee toned-down his 'aren't-I-sweet' manner on his last
> show. But true-to-type, he smiled when he said, "The Constitution
> grants Congress the power to levy taxes." Yes, Governor, but with
> this crucial SPIRIT-of-the-Constitution proviso: *** Nothing that
> government does, nor laws that they pass has validity without the
> consent of the governed! *** When our elected dictators consistently
> do things not agreeable to the majority of the voters, they are in
> violation of their fiduciary responsibility to… REPRESENT their
> constituents. My New Constitution requires that every public official
> take this oath:
>
> "All local, state and federal officer holders and employees—upon
> taking office or assuming employment—shall take the following oath:
> "I, (Name), promise to serve and be deferential to the People, and to
> be unbiased toward any group with a pro democracy, pro fairness
> ideology. I swear to honor and uphold the full civil rights of the
> citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and I shall expect my
> coworkers and superiors to do the same. I understand that my
> employment in or by government is conditional upon my adherence to
> this oath."
>
> And … "Votes taken on bills are final. If there is less than a 55%
> yea vote, as below, no revoting on a bill, unless first substantially
> changed, can be taken for two years. Passed bills that are
> constitutional become law, but when possible, laws shall be
> probationary for one year to allow more Citizen input—with no disfavor
> being shown to such latter input. Laws shall be revoted and expunged
> if new information shows such to have been poorly conceived, or
> contrary to the Will of the People—especially the law-abiding Citizens
> most affected. ***Officials not honoring the latter or acting counter
> to the will of or not in the best interests of their electorate shall
> be removed.*** Except for elections or referenda, secret ballots
> shall not be used in governmental nor judicial proceedings, and no
> part of any official public meeting shall be held in private."
>
> And … "Representatives shall be elected to two year terms by the vote
> of the People of their districts on the first Tuesday in November of
> even number years, and shall ***fairly represent all blocs of their
> electorate, or face expulsion."
>
> Glenn Beck, at Fox News, claims that Thomas Jefferson had argued
> against having a democracy. Note: "A democracy is that form of
> government that has the people voting on every law." It is NOT a
> democracy just having the voters select their supposed
> representatives. The latter is a Republic, but only if those who are
> elected actually DO the will of their electorates. *** Our ACTUAL
> form of government in the USA is closer to an unconstitutional
> oligarchy, since those in government seldom heed the Will of the
> People, and most of the 'power' is vested in the unconstitutional
> senate.
>
> Glenn Beck berates having a democracy, because he misconstrues that
> such allows small majorities to subjugate the nearly-as-large
> minority. Nothing could be further from the truth! To wit: A boat
> load of, say, 100 men, women and children risked all to sail to our
> new land. Along the way, a storm came up causing everyone to question
> the wisdom of making the journey. A vote was taken to decide whether
> to continue or to turn back. 51% chose to continue. Did that mean
> that the 51% get to ROB and subjugate the 49% who… lost? Hell no!
> Most people's concept that the losers in elections are without rights
> results from our cancerous two-party political system, which has
> ALWAYS been unconstitutional! What representatives actually get to do
> is to decide the subtleties of laws that don't intentionally oppress
> any portion of the public! I liken that to deciding whether to have
> waffles or pancakes for breakfast. Neither are harmful to anyone, but
> someone must decide.
>
> A HUGE difference between my New Constitution and the original is that
> I allow no laws to pass (beyond being probationary) without getting
> 60% of the vote. Because I don't want any individuals to have too
> much power in government, I've included, for example, this provision:
>
> "Local governments shall have 10 or more councilmen or a direct vote
> of the People is required to pass ordinances or raise taxes. Upon
> request by the Executive or 1/5 of the larger governing body, federal,
> state or local law making authority shall defer to the People on
> controversial issues where the Will of the People is in doubt. No law
> nor previous or subsequent vote on any issue shall usurp the right of
> an informed Public to decide controversial issues in direct referenda;
> the vote for passage shall be 60%. The apt macro-Will of the People
> in elections or referenda, as manifested by their votes, shall take
> precedence over any contrary existing or subsequent law, governmental
> hierarchy or judicial ruling. Because conditions change, older laws
> aren't necessarily the Will of the People."
>
> And … "All assent five-to-four Supreme Court decisions are for one
> year only, or shall be invalid; and the same nine justices shall not—
> on their own—reconsider such issue."
>
> The colossal failure of the media is that they judge a medium's
> content by the number of viewers, readers or advertisers. The media
> value system is based on dollars and cents with no overriding moral
> imperative.
>
> Sean Hannity, lamely, addresses the conservative viewpoints. But by
> the end of his shows he's too appreciative of the likes of Bob Beckel,
> including women, for being his… guests. The latter get to cry about
> how important the jobs of (God-damned) government workers are, and how
> those jobs should be protected (socialism!). Hannity hasn't once
> said: "Everyday, Barack Obama willfully violates the Constitution—
> which he fraudulently swore to defend. He has orchestrated the
> passage of laws that are more hurtful to this economy, and more
> divisive of this Nation than any other person in our country's
> history. Obama is an anti-America socialist/communist—the greatest
> TRAITOR of all time! While he masquerades as President, in actuality,
> he's just a common outlaw who should be hanged for TREASON! The USA
> can't survive with Obama, and any of his socialist/communist base, in
> power. It's time we straighten-out government by ratifying a New
> Constitution. Haven't we had enough 'talk' about our problems? Now,
> we should FIX those problems, beginning with the arrest of Barack
> Obama for TREASON! And yesterday, wouldn't be too soon."
>
> If there is anyone in the media who supposes there is any motivation
> of any part of it to actually straighten-out our corrupt
> government(s), I would love to hear that faint message. Canceling
> your subscriptions and turning off Fox and the rest of the fraud
> 'news' shows, could be the only answer.
>
> I invite those who might be interested to read: "The Shortest
> Distance: Harmony Through Prosperity." (Amazon & B. & N.)
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> AKA NoEinstein on Google's sci.physics news group.
>
>
>
> On Feb 13, 11:26 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Love thy neighbor, or love thy criminals.
>
> > Polls taken throughout Barack Obama's tenure as our elected dictator
> > show that a consistent 40% to 45% think he is doing OK as… President.
> > That contrasts with as few as 16% of Americans who approve of Obama's
> > handling of the US economy. Why isn't there a parallel between those
> > two polling questions? Can one's rating as President not take into
> > account both overall performance and specific performance?
>
> > In 2004 I had heard glowing reports of an attractive Black man from
> > Chicago who, supposedly, was delivering rousing speeches. So, I made
> > it a point to listen when Obama addressed the Democratic Convention
> > that year. My reaction wasn't favorable. The words of the speech
> > were OK, but Obama was stony-faced and emotionless. He talked in a
> > modified monotone—dropping his voice at the end of sentences as though
> > his energy had drained out. The most noticeable aspect of his
> > bearing, as a speaker, was the regularity with which he turned his
> > head from side to side while reading teleprompters. Though he was
> > articulate sounding, Obama didn't seem to be enjoying the message he
> > was delivering. Where there is real passion, usually there are
> > changes in speaking tone, changes in body language, and apt
> > gesturing. Obama showed none of those. Whoever that 'attractive
> > Black man from Chicago' was, he was keeping the true identity of the
> > speaker hidden from public view. That fact made me feel very uneasy,
> > mostly, because other people, apparently, were only seeing the
> > slender, suave and handsome man, and not seeing the likely psychosis
> > lurking below that man's surface.
>
> > Bill Kristol of the 'Weekly Standard', a supposed conservative
> > magazine, is a regular 'guest contributor' on Fox News. On Chris
> > Wallace's show, Sunday, Kristol was his usual smiley self while he
> > defended not firing policemen and librarians as part of needed budget
> > cuts. Though I've never read a
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment